Baldylocks and the three bare(faced lies)

Baldylocks is a liar. He is also a manipulative con-artist.

And those are just his good points

The most repugnant part of his personality - and god knows that's up against some stiff competition - is his willingness to make the most foul allegations about completely innocent bystanders for no other reason than to remove objections to his lunatic conspiracy theory

So let's take a look at an example, shall we?

My usual format applies - my words are in red

Bennett was getting excited - only two more needed for a full house

Thank you once again Rogue-a-Tory for once again getting to the heart of the matter.

Or in other  words, for agreeing with you.

Is Martin Smith a totally trustworthy witness? - a witness of truth?

Yes he is and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. 

I dealt with this issue very fully in SMITHMAN 5, where I listed no fewer than TWELVE sets of major contradictions and changes of story in the Smith family's evidence.

That's all bullshit too. We might take a look at that later. 

This was Section 10 of my article:

 Contradictions by Martin Smith about his knowledge of Robert Murat

Here we go....... 

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Okay - stop right there. That is the only version which matters, ie his sworn statement.  

Met him ‘only once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”. 

This is a second-hand account, with Mr Smith referred to in the 3rd person from a newspaper, no less - a genre about as reliable as a Daily Express headline heralding the next Ice Age. Therefore, there is NO CONTRADICTION. 

‘Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”. 

This is a second-hand report on a news station and what is even more hilarious is that it isn't even a contradiction! He said in his statement he had met him twice, he is quoted here as saying he met him several times - the meaning is exactly the same. Therefore NO CONTRADICTION  

‘I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”. 

This is another newspaper report and not even a direct quotation. Even then, it is not even a contradiction! He had known Murat by sight for years. So, NO CONTRADICTION 

I invited members and guests to respond to those twelve sets of contradictions and attempt to explain them all, or even some of them. No-one has yet been able to do so.

I'll happily demolish all of them, you utter fraud, but I have no intention of doing so on your cesspit site 

Note above the bits I have highlighted in red: "MET" "SEVERAL TIMES" for "MANY YEARS". These statements are repeated and I believe them to be the truth. And let us recall how absolutely adamant Martin Smith was that the man could not be Robert Murat, and let us also recall that Martin Smith only jumped into life and reported his 'sighting' the very day after the man he had met several times over many years had just been declared a suspect.

Okay - here is another of Baldylocks' tricks. He has now inserted the word ''Many'', which does not exist in the quoted text and which is a transparent attempt to mislead. Mr Smith said he had met Murat several times and knew him by sight. So why would he NOT be adamant? He knew the man by sight; the man he saw was not Murat. 

In answer to @ ChippyM, having weighed up the evidence on Smithman for well over four years now, in my opinion the most likely  scenario that fits the facts is that Martin Smith and his children did a cunning and careful fabrication of a fake sighting.

That is completely libellous and not supported by any of the evidence. It is also pretty disgusting to falsely accuse a 12 year old girl of fabricating a sighting in an attempt to shore up your conspiralunacy.

Here I part company with Lizzy HideHo who says the Smiths must have seen someone that Thursday night, but not Gerry McCann and not anyone carrying away Madeleine. If they did fabricate this sighting, I do not know why. But I have many times given many possible reasons why people might lie.

If you are going to accuse someone of fabricating evidence you need to have a very good reason. "I don't know why" is not a good reason.  

I must say that I have seen some very bizarre statements in the past trying to explain that Smithman = Gerry McCann, but I cannot recollect one as so completely barmy as was suggested upthread by someone, namely that Madeleine died earlier in the week but for some inexplicable reason the McCanns decided not to parade her body around the streets of Praia da Luz until 10pm on Thursday 3 May, and at the very time that Kate McCann and her Tapas 7 friends were raising the alarm.

If we're going there, I have never seen an idea as barmy as your insistence that Madeleine died on the Sunday and that dozens of people conspired to cover that up for days, based on your idiot misreading of a weather report. 

One poster even suggested that the McCanns conspired to keep her body in cold water for a few days so that rigor mortis wouldn't set in.

Also ludicrous. But not as ludicrous as most of your nonsense 

These ludicrous suggestions show how desperate some people are to rescue the Smithman sighting from its proper place - the rubbish bin.

Your ludicrous claims show how desperate you are to discredit anyone whose evidence blows your idiot theory out of the water 

Next - Baldylocks' bullshit about the e-fits